Sensawunda: why the hate?

What is it about “sense of wonder” that seems to set some people’s teeth on edge. We have a recent rant on io9 that pretty much gives the distillation of the argument in the title: Is “Sense Of Wonder” Just A Code For Returning To Childhood?

To quote said rant:

Whenever people talk about “sense of wonder,” it seems like they default to talking about childhood. And there’s a certain nostalgia for that time, and a desire to recapture it or hold onto it somehow.
[…]
Thing is, there are things you cannot see if you’re too busy looking at everything with a “sense of wonder.” And those things are often the stuff most worth talking about. I like science fiction that’s gritty but hopeful, and politically realistic but still idealistic at its core. And it’s hard to write science fiction that deals with complicated human problems, and stark political realities, when we’re constantly pausing to admire our own ingenuity.
[…]
Is it possible that the only way we can keep “sense of wonder” alive for the veteran reader is by turning to posthuman protagonists, who have seen it all before — except for the latest wonder? In other words, by clinging to “sense of wonder” so hard, do we end up jettisoning everything else, even the humanity of our protagonists? Even the foibles and emotional complexities that make people, well, wonderful?

(It also brings up Nancy Kress’ article again, which brought about my last post on the subject.)

The post hits all the touchstones of this argument; “sense of wonder” is juvenile, “sense of wonder” is somehow antithetical to actual characterization, and lastly “sense of wonder” is a trope used primarily to detract from the serious issues that SF should be addressing.

Last one first. That argument annoys the hell out of me. It is basically the same idea as Mundane SF, but actually used as a value judgment. Frankly if you think that my fiction has to address a particular laundry-list of “complicated human problems, and stark political realities” in order to be found worthy, well you can kiss my hairy white ass. That doesn’t even count as an argument vs. “sense of wonder,” its just the same old pedantic assertion that “good” fiction has to be “good” for you.

Characterization? I pointed out that canard in my prior post, and this one. Short version: Characterization is a story element independent of setting and genre. IF IT SUCKS, THE STORY SUCKS, REGARDLESS WHAT THE STORY’S ABOUT.

Finally, the idea it is juvenile? Hyperion anyone?  What this argument is actually about is the dismissal of literature attempting to engage an emotional effect.  Some folks think that if the emotion is a positive uplifting one then the work is naive, childish and fluffy. This is not limited to SF and sense of wonder, it is also the stick wielded against all romance, it is the snooty attitude that all pretentious literati take toward the idea of “entertainment” in general. This isn’t a value judgment on the literature, it is a value judgment on what the literature is trying to do. It is akin to complaining that a microwave doesn’t do your dishes.